A02. Attachment 1. RFP IMAC Additional Instructions Evaluation Criteria.docx

SECTION L/SECTION M - INSTRUCTIONS / EVAL CRITERIA

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION, BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF WITH MANDATORY GO, NO-GO CRITERIA

1. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS.

1.1. POINT OF CONTACT (POC): All correspondences, questions, and proposals shall be sent via e-mail to the POC, at kevin.t.jandovitz.civ@health.mil. The Offeror is responsible for ensuring receipt by the POC.

1.2. PROPOSAL QUESTIONS: Questions may be submitted to the POC via email No Later Than 9:00 AM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 30 April 2026.

1.3. PROPOSAL DUE DATE: No Later Than 12:00 PM EST on 30 April 2026 via email to the POC listed above.

1.4. ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION: Proposals shall be electronically submitted to the POC listed above. Submissions shall include two separate parts: Price proposal and Non-Price proposal. The Non-Price proposal shall be submitted in Microsoft Office Word document or in a searchable PDF format. The Price proposal shall be submitted in Microsoft Excel format (2000 or later). The firewall utilized by the Government contracting office does not authorize or accept zip files.

2. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND FORMAT INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. ADMINISTRATIVE FORMAT INSTRUCTIONS:

2.1.1. PAGE LIMITS: Non-Price proposals are limited to 20 single-sided pages. Pages should be numbered consecutively throughout the document and not by sections. For any sections of a proposal with a defined page limit, pages exceeding the specified limit will be removed and not forwarded for evaluation. The following sections are not subject to the 20 page limits listed above:

· Table of Contents

· Title page - Contractor Task Order POC Cover Page

· DAU Certification Proof

2.1.2. FORMATTING: Proposal content shall be no smaller than Times New Roman size 12 font with 1” margins. Exhibits, graphics, charts, captions, etc., shall be no smaller than size 10 font.

3. NON-PRICE PROPOSAL CONTENT INSTRUCTIONS: The Offeror’s non-Price proposal shall clearly reflect how you propose to comply with the performance requirements identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) regardless of the Government’s estimated effort. Your non-price proposal, including any supporting documentation, is to be clear and concise. Your proposal should address all of the evaluation criteria.

The Offeror’s non-Price proposal shall contain the following:

a. Non-Price Factors

1. Go, No-Go (FACTOR 1):

The Government has established a “Go, No-go” factor as part of the Non-Price evaluation. Offeror’s proposal shall clearly demonstrate and will be evaluated to ensure that the proposed approach includes the following mandatory requirement:

• Go, No-go #1: Ability to propose a fully DAU certified course. Proposed course shall be DAU certified prior to proposal submission (Proof required with proposal).

Failure to provide an approach which clearly demonstrates this “Go-No-go” capability will render the proposal as deficient and un-awardable.

2. Technical Approach (FACTOR 2):

Minimum technical requirements for this procurement include:

a A written technical approach which effectively demonstrates the Offeror’s clear understanding of all the PWS tasks and how the approach is likely to yield the required results within the required time frame. Ability to provide a truncated version of the Task 1 course (this truncated course will not be DAU certified). Additionally, the Offeror shall demonstrate the methodology and flexibility that will be used in accomplishing any resultant award.

b. The Offeror shall submit written information that shall describe the Offeror’s management approach that will lead to the successful accomplishment of the requirement. This shall include (at minimum) chain of command practices which will contribute in positive manner to ensuring completion of all objectives (particularly emphasizing communications, accounting, crosschecks) on schedule early enough to take necessary corrective actions, and flexibility in allocating resources based on Government priorities; as well as Offeror’s plans for monitoring and reporting progress:

c. The Offeror shall submit written information which effectively demonstrates the Offeror’s relevant experience (for this purpose, experience refers to what an Offeror has done, not how well it was accomplished) identical to, similar to or related to the tasks performed within the PWS.

3. Past Performance (FACTOR 3):

For the Past Performance Non-Price Factor Offeror’s are not required to submit past performance references. The Government will make a responsibility determination based on reviewing the System for Award Management (SAM), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) database systems.

4. PRICE PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS/CONTENT: Offeror’s shall complete the Government’s pricing sheet (which can be supplemented). Offeror’s price proposal shall be in sufficient detail in order for the Government to determine prices as fair and reasonable. Proposed prices should list both a labor price build-up per class (if applicable) as well as an “overall” price per class pricing. Prices should be in line with either commercial prices or commensurate FSS prices. Any and all Government discounts should be afforded to the Government on offerors price proposal. In addition to completing the CLIN (i.e. unit price and total amounts) on pages 18-30 of this solicitation, a separate price shall be provided with offeror’s proposal submission. If submitting labor categories as part of price proposal, all labor category rates shall reflect a fully burdened rate.

Other Direct Costs (Travel and Other (Material, printing, mailing, etc.) costs shall be proposed and fully detailed and substantiated. See PWS Section 2.1.4 for ODC details.

Price will be evaluated separately from non-price factors and will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The evaluated price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness in terms of:

Consistency with the technical approach, in that the prices are consistent with and reflect the proposed requirements for the base and all option periods.

Fairness and reasonableness of proposed price(s). Price(s) that are unreasonable, not fully supported/substantiated, or both, may cause the overall technical evaluation to be adjusted in one or more of the non-price evaluation factors.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise options.

Offeror’s proposals shall remain valid for a minimum of 90 days from the date of submission.

SECTION M – EVALUATION CRITERIA

PROPOSAL EVALUATION: The Government intends to award a contract without discussions. The Offeror shall provide their best, complete proposal upon initial submission. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions if deemed necessary by the Contracting Officer. A Technical Evaluation will evaluate the proposal based on the proposal/documentation provided. The evaluation will be based on the evaluation criteria set forth below.

EVALUATION CRITERIA – BEST VALUE TRADE-OFF WITH MANDATORY GO, NO-GO EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

a. Basis for Award: Award of this contract will be made on a competitive best value basis, along with an additional, and MANDATORY Go, No-Go criteria, using “best value trade-off” among price and non-cost/price factors. The Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the Offeror with the highest rated non-cost/price proposal. Past Performance will be evaluated independently from the other non-cost/price evaluation factors using different standards. The non-cost/price evaluation factors are as follows:

(1) Go, No Go Factor,

(2) Technical Approach Factor, and

(3) Past Performance Factor

Cost/price will be evaluated separately from the above technical factors, for fairness and reasonability.

Government evaluators will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal.

After each of the above non-cost/price factors are rated individually, an overall rating will be assigned collectively to these factors. If any of the above non-cost/price evaluation factors receives an individual rating of “Unacceptable”, the collective overall rating will also be “Unacceptable”. Only proposals receiving an overall rating of “Acceptable” or higher will be considered for award. In addition, cost/price proposals that are not found fair and/or reasonable will not be considered for award. The non-cost/price factors are more important than cost/price.

As the collective non-cost/price factors begin to reach equality in the evaluation, cost/price becomes a more important factor in the trade-off analysis.

(1) Go, No-Go Factor:

Prior to performing a full evaluation, the Government will screen all proposals based on the stated Go, No-go” subfactor. The Government will review proposals to determine whether or not the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates and conforms to the following required DAU certification requirements:

· Go, No-go #1 (Mandatory to All Proposed Approaches: Ability to propose a fully DAU certified course. Proposed course shall be DAU certified prior to proposal submission.

The Offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate that their proposed solution(s) meets the mandatory “go, no-go” subfactor at time of proposal submission. Failure to demonstrate compliance with this go, no-go subfactor will result in a non-responsive proposal, will be deemed deficient, and will be excluded from further evaluation and therefore not considered for award.

All proposals which are determined to successfully demonstrate all “go, no-go” factors (as applicable) will be evaluated under the Best Value Trade-Off methodology as follows:

(1) Technical Approach Factor:

Technical requirements for this procurement shall include:

1. The degree to which offeror’s written technical approach which effectively demonstrates the Offeror’s clear understanding of all the PWS tasks and how the approach is likely to yield the required results within the required time frame. Ability to provide a truncated version of the Task 1 course (this truncated course will not be DAU certified and will be in addition to the fully certified course required in the go/no-go factor). Additionally, the Offeror shall demonstrate the methodology and flexibility that will be used in accomplishing any resultant award.

2. The degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach describes the Offeror’s management approach that will lead to the successful accomplishment of the requirement. This shall include (at minimum) chain of command practices which will contribute in positive manner to ensuring completion of all objectives (particularly emphasizing communications, accounting, crosschecks) on schedule early enough to take necessary corrective actions, and flexibility in allocating resources based on Government priorities, as well as Offeror’s plans for monitoring and reporting progress:

3. The degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach effectively demonstrates the Offeror’s relevant experience (for this purpose, experience refers to what an Offeror has done, not how well it was accomplished) identical to, similar to or related to the tasks performed within the PWS.

(3) Past Performance Factor: The Government will conduct a past performance evaluation of the Offeror’s past performance as well as that of its subcontractors via System for Award Management (SAM), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) database systems. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort is to the current requirement for source selection. Common aspects of relevance include similarity of service/support, complexity, magnitude of effort, dollar value, and contract type. Second, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s past performance references to determine the quality of work performed and assess the level of expectation that the Offeror can successfully perform the required effort. As stated in the above instructions, offerors are not required to submit past performance references.

b. Price Evaluation: Price (labor/course pricing as well as ODCs) will be evaluated separately from the non-price factors, and will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. The evaluated price will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness in terms of:

· Consistency with the technical approach, in that the prices are consistent with and reflect the proposed staffing and or level of effort required.

· Sufficient pricing detail to allow the Government to conduct a fair and reasonable determination.

· Pricing in line with offeror’s GSA, or other Government pricing (if applicable).

· Fairness and reasonableness of proposed price(s). Price(s) that are unreasonable, not fully supported/substantiated, or both, may cause the overall technical evaluation to be adjusted in one or more of the non-price evaluation factors.

c. Rating Standards and Definitions:

Rating Standards for the Non-Cost/Price Proposal (Excluding any Go/No-Go Subfactors and Past Performance):

Past Performance Confidence Assessments Standards for the Non-Cost/Price Proposal:

Best Value Trade-off Evaluation Standard Definitions: